Netanyahu's Petulance: A Self-inflicted Wound?

For Obama's good fortune, Iran may save his day and finally add
luster to his Nobel Peace Prize. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu predictably greeted the news of an interim agreement between
the West and Iran temporarily freezing nuclear development in Iran by
insisting "Israel is not bound by this agreement." For good measure, he
added his doomsday hyperbole when he thundered "Israel will not allow
Iran to develop a military nuclear capability."

The Israeli Prime Minister is a great admirer of American politics
and he plays it at home and here as well. He is a master of the sound
bite which he regularly heaps on a supine American Congress (which
probably does not understand any other way of talking). He publicly is
committed to sabotage any negotiated deal with the Iranian government.
He "demands" a freeze and dismantling of Iranian nuclear capabilities,
peaceful or otherwise, something we never demanded of other governments,
including -- dare we say it -- Israel. He opposes any modest relief
from the very effective sanctions against the Iranians -- but those
sanctions Netanyahu consistently opposed and belittled.

Meanwhile, the Israeli Prime Minister fires his barrage of words, if
not expletives. He denounced a proposed agreement with Iran as "an
exceedingly bad deal," to give "the most dangerous regime of the 21st
century the world's most dangerous weapons is a big, big mistake." After
he visited (briefed?) with Abraham Foxman, the national director of the
Anti-Defamation League, he dispatched his proxy to deliver the message.
"In order to get into sync on the strategy, you need trust, and the
trust has been eroded," Foxman dutifully said. So, Netanyahu doesn't
trust the United States -- or is he just assaulting the current
president, who grows more unpopular even outside the reflexive hostile
crowd?

Obama's well-publicized 90-minute telephone call to Netanyahu
placated him not at all. Immediately afterward, Netanyahu resumed his
public posturing. "We've been around for about 4,000 years, the Jewish
people, and we're not about to allow Ayatollahs armed with nuclear
weapons" to threaten Jews. Shortly thereafter, he warmly hugged French
President François Hollande in a manner never used for Obama, and he
visited his new BF, Vladimir Putin, urging him not to deal with Iran.

The ever-accommodating New York Times' Thomas Friedman will
not disapprove or denounce Netanyahu's repeated interference and public
undermining of American policies. He makes light of it or draws
parables. Friedman thinks it gives the United States some broad
strategic advantage, enabling it to tell the Iranians: "Look, our
friends are craaaaaazzzy. And one of them has a big air force. You
better sign quick." Diplomacy and negotiations between nations require
adults. (As do New York Times columnists.) We have been
there, done that. Friedman must admire Richard Nixon's so-called
"madman theory" for dealing with the North Vietnamese in 1971, when he
similarly conveyed word that the communists better negotiate or he would
drop terrible weapons to impose his will.

Benjamin Netanyahu is an old hand at rolling Obama. It is good
politics in some Israeli quarters but especially here with the
Republican Party that dutifully follows the adage that any Obama enemy
is their friend. We heard the welcome news from Geneva Saturday night.
John Cornyn, the Senate's second ranking Republican leader, wasted no
time and promptly tweeted, "Amazing what WH will do to distract
attention from O-care."

Israeli citizenry from across their diversified spectrum know better;
they realize that for more than six decades the United States not only
has been its trusted friend and ally, but Israel's benefactor,
protector, and guarantor. Once again the Israeli Prime Minister busily
rallies American Jews -- and most particularly his wealthy, right-wing
American Jewish supporters -- to pressure Congress and the media to
support his policy of rejecting any diplomatic accommodation with Iran,
short perhaps of an Israeli occupation. As always, he is a reliable,
dependable ally of the American neo-con crowd which is committed to
something they call "the Long War," where we maintain and use American
power against real or shadowy enemies.

Netanyahu knows that however much he and whatever Iranian counterparts
talk of annihilation, it is clear that no American president would
tolerate any such possibility. For American Jews to solidly support his
adventurism against the perceived interests of their own government is
an unimaginable leap of faith. They are not sheep, blindly following the
wishes of Netanyahu and his American patrons; American Jews
overwhelmingly worship at different alters. Such unequivocal support
inevitably would require mass emigration and aliyah -- and that simply
is not in the cards. ("It is a nice place to visit, but why would I want
to live there?") Divided sentiments and divided loyalties are wholly
different.

Richard Nixon lost a war, and no dominoes fell. And the dominoes
still stand between Iran and the West. For the first time in over three
decades, Iran engaged in civilized give-and-take diplomacy. We start
with a six-month interim agreement. Six months, given the past light
years, is an incredible breakthrough. We must of course wait to see what
"interim" actually means.

The real issue for Netanyahu and other Israeli hardliners, with their
congressional supporters here, is Israel's determination to maintain
its monopoly as the region's only nuclear power. Netanyahu says nothing,
and little is heard in the American media, of Israel's nuclear weapons.
The Prime Minister's silence and ours covers the elephant in the room.

Significant, emerging division nevertheless apparently is rising in
Iran, and we must exploit it. Iran wishes to develop a nuclear
capacity, insisting it would be for peaceful purposes; we for good
reason do not want them to have a bomb capability. These are not
incompatible, mutually exclusive goals. President Obama, our onetime
Nobel Peace Prize recipient, must not appease either the Ayatollah or
Netanyahu, who view the other as "an existential threat," anxious to
impose its will on the other. Neither posture is in an American
national interest.